Hello,
Andy from the DWG here. Unfortunately, I suspect I know who you might mean - we have had a couple of complaints already.
Please drop an email to data@openstreetmap.org or report the user in OSM.
Best Regards,
Andy
1 Like
Thanks Andy,
That is what I was looking for, I did not know this existed.
Done so, created a report.
1 Like
In addition.
- He does add useful edits, one could say: expanding on my work. Going into massive, but maybe inappropriate, detail.
- But the aggressive way seems intended to overwrite anything someone else, or me in particular, makes to start with.
- I just read a reply from him that states that he has to, because my work is no good.
- Bottom line is that he is interfering my work in an unpractical and unpleasant way.
1 Like
Thanks. That hasn’t reached us yet, but I’m sure that the admins will pass it across shortly. I won’t do anything until they do.
Edit: (2 days later) report still not in our list yet…
I looked at some changes by BertMule, which has Bing as image reference. Bing is not the best image reference in Sweden, because we have “Lantmäteriet” here, which also mostly have the most current images.
Bing can be used, but must be calibrated against the “Trafikverket” layer. Maybe this calibration wasn’t done properly. Because the “other user” comments says “position adjustment” with Lantmäteriet as reference.
1 Like
But the Lantmäteriet aerial photos are not licensed to use for OSM, are they?
1 Like
user @BertMule (user) is refering to me. In cs Changeset: 132151958 | OpenStreetMap I commented: “Don’t use highways as outers for landuse or in this case water! We are not doing this sort of thing in this country.
Especially not when - as in this case - the highway is on a bridge over the water(s). Water and highway are in different spatial dimensions!”
Subsequently I repaired the multipolygon (not just outers, but even inners which were in wrong mp). I investigated the area and found a lot of things which had been done sloppyly - not just by user - and could be done better.
Up to this day user has not respondet to my comment, but has sent me some pm in which he ordered me not to edit in what user thought of being user’s own area. In one pm user sugested that I should use my imagination and look for another area where I could edit. In not one single comment or pm user was concerned about edits or aspects of these. User was only intrested of carving out some exclusive area of user’s own.
I was not aware that this sort of behavior is ok on osm.
Regarding the correctness and quallity of my edits - ante and post - there are plenty of ways to check this.
With respect, where there have have been disagreements and reports of “this sort of behaviour” in Sweden previously, the common factor is you. Here your comment “Don’t use highways as outers for landuse or in this case water!” comes across as more than a little rude. You have been asked to change your attitude in this regard; it looks like that that hasn’t happened.
That said, it is perfectly OK to offer advice to other mappers, or make changes to the way that they have mapped something to improve the accuracy of something. There are ways of communicating how to do things better that don’t start with a command and end with an exclamation mark. It looks from this that you haven’t said much to BertMule in changeset comments (and as an aside, I think it would help if he replied to some more of the previous comments from the Netherlands too).
It’s also common courtesy if someone is working in an area (especially one with lots of connected multipolygon relations) to not jump in and “correct” things until they’ve finished, since it’ll just cause confusion with object versions.
Best Regards,
Andy, from OSM’s Data Working Group
That’s the way that all of OpenStreetMap is made - everything is built on everything else. I hope this thread has been useful - people explaining what imagery is the best to use in Sweden, and also why having landuse glued to roads (and linear waterways such as streams) is generally considered a bad idea.
Maybe it would be worth asking other people in Sweden to have a look at your edits (I guess you could just ask in this forum - I don’t think that the traffic would be too much).
1 Like
@SomeoneElse “Here your comment “Don’t use highways as outers for landuse or in this case water!Here your comment “Don’t use highways as outers for landuse or in this case water!” comes across as more than a little rude.””. I beg your pardon, but this was not the grievance of the user. It is you who are about to shift the discussion.
I do not know what you percieve as rude “… more than a litle rude.” in this centence. Is it the use of the exclamation-mark (which as yet is an acceptet token i western alphabets)? I used the mark to stress an important point. Is the excamation-mark canceled in osm? Or is it the sentence construction (I am a non english speaker)?
If I were intentionally rude I WOULD DO SO IN QUITE ANOTHER WAY.
With all due respect Mr. Townsend, I have conveyed to you at an earlier time that you might inform yourself of the concept of bias (bias in the legal sense). Is your reference (above) to Blocks on archie | OpenStreetMap (by a member of the DWG!) in an open forum to be perceived as a threat? Or rather an ackknowledgement that you do not care about bias? I percieve your acting as puzzling and most peculiar.
Lantmäteriet allows individual OSM users to use the orthophotos but does not allow it to be included in editors without payment.
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-se/2018-December/003510.html
2 Likes
Many of us know the history of bans and discussions regarding @archie. We also know that many of those issues were resolved for the better. We also know he has strong opinions on many aspects of Swedish OSM. Perhaps the comments he writes could be more conciliatory, but everyone is different. Not everyone can be super diplomatic.
However, I also know that @archie has a good grasp on data creation for OSM, so when he claims that the “user” has made some poor choices when creating data in Sweden I am more than willing to listen to his arguments about why he sees it that way.
The real issue here seems to be that they have differing views on how to correctly create information in OSM. Because it is quite difficult to dig into OSM and see what has happened in this type of situation I would have liked to see links and/or screenshots to certain edits that @archie disagrees with. I think it would be quick and easy for the rest of us to agree or disagree.
The real problem seems to be the way the differences are resolved up until now. Essentially a tagging war followed by a chat war 
I think we can all agree that this type of situation is counterproductive.
Preliminarily, it seems like @BertMule makes poor edits and @archie makes poor comments 
Let’s hope we can resolve this in a way that lets @BertMule continue his contributions to the map in a way that is satisfying to everybody.
2 Likes
If you look at list of discussed changesets of @BertMule you will see he hardly ever give any response to changeset comments.
Just some examples from his latest changesets:
132461771
132151958
131229662
130222153
127366500
The list of unanswered comments by@BertMule is much longer then the few examples above. I think this behaviour is not acceptable. (Much worse then some harsh comments by @archie.)
1 Like
I totally agree with that. I say the same about boundaries too. I don’t want them sharing nodes with anything else because it complicates everything else unnecessarily.
I prefer to filter out everything else when working on them.
I actually don’t know if this is a commonly agreed policy in Sweden or not.
1 Like
Är det här dokumenterat i wikin?
1 Like
I actually don’t know if this is a commonly agreed policy in Sweden or not.
Probably not agreed as such. Agreed by whom, and when? But it certainly makes sense in a technical aspect to not connect the various “layers” of data that do not share the same context.
There can be many examples here:
- Roads can intersect landcover without sharing nodes (a road moving from within to without a forest do not need to touch the forest polygon)
- Power lines can intersect almost anything that isn’t
power. - Buildings do not need to touch road networks or landcover unless it makes sense to use them as a border or end point of them. Same with
powerwhere a power line can end on a building. It makes sense to connect them when they interact. - It is usually not necessary to apply
layer=1to power lines. The separation is implicit. - Cases can be made for how a waterway is used as an administrative boundary. Yes, it can be good if the waterway IS the boundary - but when you want to improve the detail of the waterway you usually need to separate them in order to get the correct geometry for the waterway.
In short, my point is that intersections and connections should only exist when there is a logical connection.
However, as we all know, in the editor iD, connecting adjacent features is heavily promoted by the way the editor works. Everything wants to snap together and I know from experience that in the view of an iD user it makes much more sense to map everything connected - because it’s almost impossible to try to map a farmland next to a road. Much more convenient to snap them together and map them as one combined way.
In JOSM it is both easier and better to map things apart.
So. Before this post is too long, I think that iD users have a valid excuse for doing things “wrong”. The software promotes it. Awareness of this from both iD- and JOSM users goes a long way, especially from the iD users’ side in understanding the limitations of that editor - and making sure not to create data in an undesirable way. Especially not on a large scale.
I feel like I’m about to pass (extrajudicial) judgment here, but I’ll say it anyway 
@BertMule, please avoid using misaligned Bing Aerial photos, and try to avoid snapping things together.
@archie, please avoid creating conflicts while he is working by immediately editing in the same area.
I did not know that (I have sticked with JOSM for years). That is really really terrible from a data quality and maintenance perspective.
Also I’m missing good tools in JOSM to unseparate different “layers”. Today I created a relation for a stream ONLY because part of it was connected to a boundary and I did not remember/know how to easily (I prefer a one-click tool) separate them. This effectively increases the complexity without adding any value. I would much preferred to have one way for this simple stream.
Select the way and “unglue”? Using the W-tool with ALT-key (windows) is also good for detaching individual nodes from a combined way (by deleting them). Or create a new way and move the tags to it.
Anyway, let’s not get sidetracked on this thread as well
Unless @archie @BertMule or @SomeoneElse (pun intended) have anything more to say I’m going to leave this thread alone from now on.
1 Like
I am just returning here.
Frankly, I thought that on filing my complaint, and the affirmative reactions, I thought this matter would have been settled.
Let me remind this is not about some nitty-gritty detail. I am not even going to discuss any of that.
But about the repeated aggressive altering/interfering/corrupting which was the real problem.
Just read again.
That’s all I have to say about it.
If it happens again, I will immediately send in another complaint.
Why do you not answer changeset comments?